Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. krimpet⟲ 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Basically a smear campaign against Bill O'Reilly. Nearly everything in this article isn't important enough to include in an encyclopedia, and if it is move it into the main page on O'Reilly. A lot of it is original research, not written in a neutral point of view, full of questionable sources, and mainly defamatory material. CO₂ 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is a huge, well written, highly referenced article, and probably very informative considering the amount of people who don't like Bill O'Reilly. 90% of Wikipedia isn't "important" enough for an encyclopedia, that's why Wikipedia is so great. Charles 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously, this article is not neutral. But this is a reason for improvement, not for deletion.Biophys 19:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and edit to address the nom issues. The article has controversy because O'Reilly (and those who agree and disagree with him) generate controversy. That's no reason to delete criticism. The article already has many statements in support of O'Reilly and in opposition to his critics. If sections of the article or specific sources that may be POV are removed by consensus, and the result is a very short article, then it can be moved to a section of the Bill O'Reilly page. As it is now, however, it is long enough for a separate article. Ward3001 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep NPOV problems are not a reason for deletion. After a quick glance through, I was surprised how neutral and non-OR the article was — most "Criticism" articles/sections are full of "some people think..." weasel words, but this seems to be based around notable criticism with decent sources, and I can't see anything obviously non-neutral. Thomjakobsen 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Trim and merge to Bill O'Reilly. It seems to me to be a POV fork, and several parts of the article are unreferenced (and therefore potentially defamatory); having a separate article for criticism of him seems to me to be undue weight. However, there is enough sourcing, from reliable sources, to demonstrate that he's attracted some notable criticism; as such, the most prominent criticism should be summarised and merged to the main article, along with the relevant sources. Walton^One 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep; Bad faith nomination and most likely an attempt to remove sourced criticism of a right-wing commentator. Are we supposed to assume good faith on an editor who, on their user page, describes Wikipedia as a "smear campaign"? Who includes links on their user page to; Vote Republican · Join the NRA · Bill O'Reilly · Patriot Guard Riders · United States Army? Wake up people. Masaruemoto 20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Someone tell me if I am right or wrong: Did the nominator remove all content from their user page after the preceding statements were made? I looked at the userpage yesterday and it was as described (Vote Republican, etc.). Now it looks like nothing is there. If that's true, I think it tells us even more. Ward3001 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, I remember checking it out just after the above comment was made. It had that beautiful picture of a tree which is now my desktop wallpaper... Thomjakobsen 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Interesting. And then in a comment below he sarcastically whines because he's accused of a bad faith nom. If I had any doubts before, I'm now convinced it's a bad faith nom. Just an attempt to force a POV when confronted with overwhelming opposition. Ward3001 23:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is very neutral. I think editors there have done a good job trimming unnecessary material and fairly and neutrally addressing all points of view. Croctotheface 20:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Trim heavily and merge seems very wise to me. Criticism articles are a plague, and criticism articles on living individuals doubly so. Genuinely significant criticisms can be covered in the main article, generic "we disagree with him" bleating by is opponents can be taken as read. Cruftbane 21:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Masaruemoto. Definitely bad-faith nom. GlassCobra 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's got 66 references. If you think there's original research or pov then remove or fix the specific problems not try and get the whole thing deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Well sourced article. I agree with Masaruemoto. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Trim and merge to Bill O'Reilly. I agree with Cruftbane above. I don't see how a Criticism article is encyclopedic in nature, but mentioning in the subject article would be more than appropriate. --Sc straker 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep no reason at all for this to be deleted. Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest Keep- groundless AfD —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - bad-faith nom. No reason for deletion. Per all above. Tiptoety 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Trim and Merge This afd may have been premature. Most of the article's "waffle" has been weeded out. It probably needs more trimming which should have been debated first before proposing afd or merge. Also one comment, while I have no problem including criticisms in articles, if similar sourced criticisms like this one were put in other articles it would be quickly reverted especially with living persons. It would be good to have a consistent approach toward how to include criticisms to avoid any systemic biases. MrMurph101 00:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Outrageous inherent POV. No way to balance it within an article like this. Total violation of the basic tenants of Wikipedia. If the nom considers WP a smear campaign, articles like this go a long way to proving it. DGG (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What a surprise, DGG voting the opposite way to me!JJJ999 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

and apparently differently than a number of other people too. They don't seem to mind :). I'd hardly write what is obviously going to be a small minority dissent just to add to the number of times I disagree with one particular WPedian? I write such dissents first, to avoid WP:SNOW on matters which need serious consideration-- in the hope that others will see the discussion and think about it & express their views, whatever they may be, and, second, in the hope of showing what some of the problems are to those who will work on the article subsequently. And sometimes I even convince someone, and it may eventually affect the way of thinking on articles like these. DGG (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - does have some serious WP:NPOV problems, but that's a cleanup job, not a deletion rationale in this case. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Although most editors here have supported keeping the article, I want to briefly lay out a case against merging and explain why this article should exist as a standalone. First, basically all the material there is verifiable and important to the subject. In some cases, these criticisms could meet or exceed notability guidelines to have their own article. O'Reilly has a confrontational, controversial, and outspoken style. Aside from material O'Reilly produces himself and related Fox News promotions and cross-appearances, much of the media coverage of O'Reilly has centered on these feuds, criticisms, and controversies. The sourcing is impeccable, and I'm confused about which items there pose BLP problems. Most of the sections are exhaustively footnoted, and the others have unambiguous and verifiable attributions within the text. To the idea of a "POV fork", I think you'll find that, for the most part, all points of view are represented neutrally and fairly in this article. if there are places where that is not the case, I'm confident that it would be a relatively painless fix. Therefore all or nearly all of the content in this article deserves to be in Wikipedia. Could everything there go back into Bill O'Reilly? Not without overwhelming what's there already. That's the reason it was split off in the first place. This is a clear keep. Croctotheface 01:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep suggest closure WP:SNOW. Should not be merged. Was bad faith nomination --Statsone 04:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Why was this nominated? No reason to delete. V-train 04:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - definite bad faith nomination MissingNo 07:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Your right, I'm a complete bastard. Citing valid reasons like WP:POVFORK makes it a bad faith nom. Oh, I'm a dumbass. CO₂ 21:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Many of the numerous controversies revolving around O'Reilly are infamous and certainly deserving of an entry in wikipedia. Indeed, this was split off from the main article in the first place simply because there are so many controversies to detail it threatened to overwhelm the main O'Reilly entry. As is, the article is factual, well sourced, and seems to continually maintain NPOV. I see no reason at all to delete.-Hal Raglan 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done, well written. • Lawrence Cohen 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep - the only other option being merge, and it's too large for that. Artw 17:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.